[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 11 25 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 1- cr-2 04 47 -CM A-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ELIEZER LAZ O, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 1 5, 2 01 2) Befo re BARKETT, PRYOR an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:

Case: 12-11252 Date Filed: 10/15/2012 Page: 1 of 8Eli ezerLazo ap pe al s h is to ta l s en te nc e o f 63 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t im po se d a fte r he pl edgu il ty to two co un ts of e ng ag in g i n m on et ary tra ns act io ns in cri m in al ly deri ve d p ro pe rty, in v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § § 1 95 7 a nd2; sev enco un ts of m on ey lau nd eri ng , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 19 56 (a)( 1) (B)( i) a nd2; an d s ix co un ts of s tru ctur in g t o e va de rep orti ng requi rem en ts , invi ol at io n o f 31 U.S.C. § 5 32 4( a)(1 ), (d )(2 ), an d 1 8 U.S.C. § 2. On app eal , Lazo arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt co m

m it te d p ro cedur al erro r whe n i t ap pl ie d afou r-l ev el in crea se to hi s of fen se lev el , pu rs uantto U.S.S.G. § 2 S1 .1(b )(2 )(C) , bas edon it s d et erm in at io n th athe ha d e ng ag edinth e m on ey lau nd eri ng bu si ne ss . Lazo c on te nd s t ha t the en ha nc em en t was in te nd edto ap pl y to so m eo ne who se li ve li ho odde pe nd edon laun de rin g o th ers ’ m on ey , wher eas he on ly con du ct edth e m on ey lau nd eri ng tra ns act io ns ov er a s ho rt p eri odof t im e. Lazo furth er ar gu es th atth e g ov ern m en t fai le d t o p ro vi de ev id en ce d em on st rat in g tha t Laz o h im se lf r ecei ve d m on ey for en ga gi ng inth e tr an sa ct io ns . For t he reas on s s etforth be lo w, we affi rm Lazo ’s se nt en ces . I. The pre se nt en ce i nv es ti ga ti on rep ort (“ PSI” ) pr ov id edth atLazo ’s coco ns pi rat or , Eliz ab etLom be ra, u se d c om

pa ni es th atsh e co nt ro ll ed , in cl ud in g Mer cy Med ic al Supp ly, In c. (“ Mer cy ”) an d J HH Group, In c. (“ JHH”) , to co m m it 2 Case: 12-11252 Date Filed: 10/15/2012 Page: 2 of 8he al th care frau d. Se ve ral in di vi du al s, i nc lu di ng Lazo , lau nd eredth e fu nd s d eri ve d

fro m th e fraudonbe ha lf o f Lom be ra an d h er co m

pani es . Over a4-mont h p eri od , be twee n Oct ob er 3 , 20 07 an d J anua ry 28 , 20 08 , Lazo rece iv edap pr ox im at el y 50 ch eck s fr om

Merc y an d J HH, to ta li ng $4 76 ,13 3.6 9, wh ic h h e d ep os it edin to a pe rs on al ch eck in g a cco un t atBan k o f Am eri ca. Ove r a two- m on th pe rio d, be twee n Oct ob er 5 , 20 07 an d Dec em be r 3, 2 00 7, Laz o m ad e num ero us cas h withd rawal s fr om

hi s ac co un t. The PSI i nd ic at edth atLazo was asel f-em pl oyed tru ckdri ve r fro m

20 01 to 20 09 , earn in g b etween$8 00 to $1 ,00 0 aweek . The PSI ca lc ul at eda ba se off en se lev el of 2 2, p ur su an t t o U.S.S.G. §§ 2S 1.1 (a)( 2) an d 2 B1 .1(b )(1 )(H), b ecau se he was re sp on si bl e fo r laun de rin g m or e th an$4 00 ,00 0, b utles s t han $ 1,0 00 ,00 0. A fo ur -le ve l i nc reas e ap pl ie d, pu rs ua ntto U.S.S.G. § 2 S1 .1(b )(2 )(C) , bec au se Lazo was i n t he bu si ne ss of laun de rin g fu nd s. Ba se d o n ato ta l o ffen se lev el of 2 6 a nda cri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory of I , Lazo ’s gu id el in e ran ge was 6 3 t o 7 8 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Lazo ob jecte d t o t he PSI’s ap pl ic at io n o f a fo ur -le ve l i nc reas e to hi s o ffen se lev el , pu rs ua ntto § 2 S1 .1(b )(2 )(C) , arg ui ng th athe was n otinth e b us in es s o f laun de rin g fu nd s an d t ha t n on e o f th e si x fa ct or s i n t he co m m en ta ry to § 2 S1 .1 ap pl ie d t o h im . Se e U.S.S.G. § 2 S1 .1, co m m en t. (n .4). At the sen te nc in g h eari ng , th e g ov ern m en t h adZach ary Cru tc hf ie ld , a 3 Case: 12-11252 Date Filed: 10/15/2012 Page: 3 of 8sp eci al ag en t wi th th e Fed eral Bu reauof I nv es ti ga ti on , tes ti fy insupp ort o f th e § 2 S1 .1(b )(2 )(C) in crea se . Crutc hf ie ldtes ti fie d t ha t h e h adrev ie wedLazo ’s ban k acco un t, an d Laz o h adde po si te d 4 8 c he ck s t ot al in g $ 36 5,5 30 .42 in to th atacco un t fro m Merc y an d 1 2 c he ck s t ot al in g $ 11 0,6 03 .33 fro m JHH. Lazo ’s acco un t h ada to ta l o f $5 03 ,16 1 wi th dr awn . In a p rio r in te rv ie w with l aw en fo rcem en t, Lo m be ra ha d s ta te d t ha t s he pa idin di vi du al s 1 0 p erce ntof t he am ou ntof aco m pa ny chec k th atwas turne d i nt o c as h, wh ic h, i n Laz o’s ca se , wou ldbe a co m m is si on of $4 7,6 13 .38 . Cru tc hf

ie ldfurth er t es ti fie d t ha t ev ery withd rawal fro m th e acc ou nt oc cu rredat adi ffer en t b ran chof t he ba nk . On cro ss -ex am in at io n, Crut ch fie ld te st ifi edth atth ere was no ev id en ce tha t Laz o h ad , infact , recei ve d fr om Lom be ra te n p erce ntof t he am ou nthe cas he d. In res po ns e to a qu es ti on fro m th e co urt, Cru tc hf ie ldtes ti fie d t ha t Laz o wen t t o d iff eren t b ran ch es of h is ba nkto de po si t the frau du le nt ly-ob ta in edfun ds on 28 di ffer en t d ay s dur in g a4-mont h p eri od . Duri ng th atsame peri od , he a ls o wen t t o t he ba nk36 ot he r ti m es , on18 di ffer en t d ay s, t o withd raw the fun ds fro m

th e acc ou nt . Crutc hf

ie ldno te d t ha t Laz o h ada bu si ne ss of tra in in g b as eb al l p la y ers inMex ic o, b utitwas n otact iv e atth e ti m e o f th e frau d. The co urt fo un d t ha t, o ve r a 4 -m on th pe rio d, Laz o v is it edbra nc he s o f hi s ba nk16 ti m es a m on th , whi ch was “ pr act ic al ly every bu si ne ss da y ,” pe rfo rm in g 4 Case: 12-11252 Date Filed: 10/15/2012 Page: 4 of 8se rv ic es for

Lom be ra. The co urt re

jecte d a ny ass ert io n t ha t Laz o d idno t re cei ve an yth in g fo r hi s s erv ic es an d d et erm in edth atth e in crea se ap pl ie d. Thu s, fo ll owi ng th e co urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f a 2 -le ve l re du ct io n fo r Lazo ’s acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y , pu rs ua ntto U.S.S.G. § 3 E1.1 (a), Lazo ha d agu id el in e ran ge of 5 1 to 63 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. The co urt co ns id eredth e 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) fact or s an d d et erm in edth atth e o ffen se was “ ex tre m el y ser io us ” an d t ha t de te rren ce was ne ed ed . The co urt the n i m po se d ato ta l s en te nc e o f 63 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. II. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs forcle ar erro r an d, i n m os t cas es , rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f th e Gui de li ne s t o t he fact s wi th du e de fere nc e, whi chis equi va le ntto cle ar err or rev ie w. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ro th en be rg , 61 0 F .3d62 1, 6 24 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). Ther e is no cle ar erro r incas es wher e th e reco rdsupp orts th e d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in gs . Uni te d Sta tes v. Petri e , 30 2 F .3d 12 80 , 12 90 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). A di st ric t co urt’s ch oi ce b etweentwo pe rm is si bl e vi ews of t he ev id en ce i s n otcle arl y erro ne ou s. Uni te d Sta tes v. De Va ro n , 17 5 F.3 d 9 30 , 94 5 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) ( en ba nc ). Fact s co nt ai ne d i n t he PSI tha t ar e n ot ob jecte d t o a re d eem edadm it te d. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Ben ne tt , 47 2 F .3d82 5, 83 3- 34 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). 5

Case: 12-11252 Date Filed: 10/15/2012 Page: 5 of 8Sect io n 2 S1 .1(b )(2 )(C) of t he Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es pro vi de s fo r a

fo ur -le ve l en ha nc em en t i f th e d efen da ntwas “ in th e b us in es s o f laun de rin g fu nd s.” The gu id el in e co m

m en ta ry to § 2 S1 .1 i ns tru ct s t he co urt t o l oo k t o t he to ta li ty of ci rcu m st an ces to de te rm in e whe th er a d efen da ntwas i n t he bu si ne ss of l au nd eri ng fu nd s. U.S.S.G. § 2 S1 .1, co m m en t. (n .4(A) ). The co m m en ta ry li st s s ix no n- ex cl us iv e fac to rs forth is an al y si s: whethe r (1 ) th e d efen dantreg ul arl y en ga ge d i n l au nd eri ng fun ds ; (2 ) th e d efen da ntlau nd eredfun ds foranex te nd ed pe rio d o f ti m e; (3) th e d efen da nten ga ge d i n l au nd eri ng fun ds fro m m ul ti pl e so ur ces ; (4 ) th e d efen dantge ne rat eda subs ta nt ia l am ou ntof r ev enue inreturn fo r laun de rin g fu nd s; (5) th e d efen da ntha d apri orco nv ic ti on fora m on ey lau nd eri ng rel at edoff

en se ; an d (6 ) th e d efen da ntm ad e st at em en ts du rin g the co ur se of a n un de rco ve r go ve rn m en t i nv es ti ga ti on th athe ha d e ng ag edinan y of t he co nduc t li st edinfact or s (1 ), (2 ), (3 ), or(4) . U.S.S.G. § 2S1 .1, co m m en t. (n .4(B )(i )– (v i)) . Sect io n 2 S1 .1(b )(2 )(C) was a dd edto th e Gui de li ne s b as edon a de te rm in at io n t ha t, si mil ar t o apro fes si on al fen ce, d efen da nt s wh o ro ut in el y en ga ge d i n l au nd eri ng fu nd s o n b eh al f of

ot he rs an d g ai ne d fi na nc ia ll y fro m su ch tra ns act io ns , warran te d subs ta nt ia l ad di ti on al pu ni sh m en t b ecau se th ey en co ur ag edth e co m

m is si on of ad di ti on al cri m in al co nduc t. U.S.S.G. App . C, Am en d. 6 34 , Reas on forAm en d. The di stric t co urt d idno t cl earl y err i n fi nd in g t ha t Laz o was inth e b us in es s 6 Case: 12-11252 Date Filed: 10/15/2012 Page: 6 of 8of

lau nd eri ng fun ds , su ch th atth e fo ur -le ve l i nc reas e ap pl ie d, p ur su an t t o § 2 S1 .1(b )(2 )(C) . Firs t, Crut ch fie ld ’s tes ti m on y at t he sen te nc in g h eari ng de m on st rat edth atLazo vi si te d d iff eren t b ran ch es of h is ba nk64 ti m es du rin g a 4- m on th pe rio d t o e it he r de po si t o r wit hd raw the frau du le nt ly-ob ta in edfun ds in fu rth eran ce o f th e m on ey lau nd eri ng sch em e, an d t hu s, the di st ric t co urt co ul d co nc lu de th atLazo reg ul arl y en ga ge d i n l au nd eri ng fun ds du rin g t he rel ev an t t im e pe rio d. Nex t, Crut ch fie ldtes ti fie d t ha t the ot he rs who lau nd eredm on ey for Lom be ra re cei ve d t enpe rcen t o f th e am ou ntth atth ey ha d c as he d. As Lazo was a tru ck -driv er atth e ti m e h e was en ga gi ng inth es e fi na nc ia l tran sa ct io ns , m ak in g $8 00 to $1 00 0 aweek , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t cl earl y err i n c on cl ud in g t ha t Laz o wou ldno t en ga ge innu m ero us tra ns act io ns at d iff eren t b ran ch es of h is bank witho utrece iv in g c om

pe ns at io n s im il ar t o t ha t re cei ve d b y th e o th er co co ns pi rat or s wh o l au nd eredm on ey forLom be ra. Cru tc hf

ie ldtes ti fie d t ha t 1 0 pe rcen t o f th e $ 47 6,1 33 .69 th atLazo adm it te d t o h av in g l aund eredwas $4 7,6 13 .38 . This was asubs ta nt ia l am ou ntof r ev enue forLazo at t he ti m e o f th e of fen se . Thir d, al th ou gh th e fu nd s g en erat edwere al l co nn ect edto th e h eal th care frau d s ch em e, m

ul ti pl e co m

pa ni es , Merc y

an d J HH, pro vi de d Laz o wi th ch eck s t o cas h, an d t hu s, the fun ds cam e fro m m ul ti pl e so ur ces . Bas edon th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces an d a t l eas t thr ee o f th e si x fa ct or s b ei ng sat is fie d, the di st ric t co urt 7 Case: 12-11252 Date Filed: 10/15/2012 Page: 7 of 8di d n otcle arl y err i n fi nd in g tha t Laz o was inth e b us in es s o f m on ey lau nd eri ng , su ch th atth e fo ur -le ve l i nc reas e ap pl ie d. Se e U.S.S.G. § 2 S1 .1, co m m en t. (n . 4( B)(i )-(v i)) . Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af firm Lazo ’s sen te nc es . AFFIRMED.

8 Case: 12-11252 Date Filed: 10/15/2012 Page: 8 of 8